Lost in Seattle

Have you seen the clip 'loose change'? Found some things to be a little far fetched, but then viewed it a second time and all I can say is if just one of these things are true we need to take action. You can view it at http://100777.com/911/loose_change

I haven't seen that, but I tend to be skeptical of any conspiracy theory. There's a decent article at Wikipedia summarizing the "Loose Change" film, its many inconsistencies and factual errors, and the legal issues concerning the filmmakers' unauthorized use of footage. I think the claim that a 757 did not crash into the Pentagon is surprisingly whack given that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses. It causes me to question how rigorous the filmmakers were or if they're just throwing everything they can find at the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick.

What the U of Wisc professor is teaching is hardly new; the web is full of "Truth Movement" websites. It all makes for compelling reading. They seem to present an amalgam of left, right, libertarian, and religious points of view that claim to offer an alternative to the mainstream media. Some claim to transcend the traditional right/left divide. Fascinating. Each site varies in some way from the others, so who is indeed telling the truth? Hmmm... As with anything else in this world, whether the "truth" is being told is for each individual to decide.

All Barrett is doing is moving this information, particularly theories about 9/11, into a more mainstream venue. My experience has always been that "conservatives" and "liberals" alike get upset at material that questions their lockstep "status quo" because they feel threatened. Hasn't it always been thus? But what are universities for, if not to test new theories and discuss differing viewpoints? Agree? Disagree? Whatever...

The University of Wisconsin professor should be presenting his 9/11 theories in a class on conspiracies, not a class on Islamic religion and culture.

Likewise, intelligent design belongs only in a Religion class (e.g. Fundamentalist Literal Biblical Interpretation 101), not a science class.

While no theories on anything should be censored completely and automatically, there needs to be a careful analysis of what is being taught where.

He's hired to teach a course in the fall; he hasn't taught yet. I haven't seen anything to indicate he's said he plans to teach his conspiracy theory in his class (I could be wrong). To fire him preemptively would be like firing me from teaching a math class because I'm an atheist and I *just might* "teach" atheism in my math class. It's absurd.

> While no theories on anything should be censored
> completely and automatically, there needs to be
> a careful analysis of what is being taught where.

So you espouse the "watch what you say" Thoughtcrime mentality of post 9/11 life, eh? Who's doing this "careful analysis" and what criteria are they using -- yours or mine?

Universities are typically described as a "free marketplace of ideas" and I would have thought the idea of a free marketplace would be something you'd endorse as a conservative/capitalist. If he does decide to talk about his theories in class, why not let the (adult, paying) students decide their opinions for themselves and voice those with their tuition dollars, and/or research his claims and engage him in a debate? Why is the Republican party -- the part of less governmental interference -- trying to interfere in this matter when the University both has the legal right to manage its personnel and the students have the ability to form their own opinions?

I've disagreed with my professors more often than not, and even found some of their beliefs offensive to me. I used those experiences to further develop my own ideas and engage in something called "the learning process."

> Why is the Republican party -- the part of less governmental
> interference -- trying to interfere in this matter...?

Because even though they recoil at the thought of paying taxes, such revenues do indeed help finance public institutions of higher learning. Consequently, as "taxpayers" (more or less), they feel it is their bounden duty to monitor and dictate what is taught there. In their myopic vision of the world, government interferes only when the "other side of the aisle" is in control.

Their attitude makes no sense to me. Evidently, many of their kids attend private colleges with "suitable" curriculum. Public college course offerings shouldn't concern them in the least. They know they can vote with their feet, and they do. Guess that just isn't enough. They want to impose their view on everyone else.

I find it highly amusing that rightwingers are demanding representation of their viewpoints at colleges. They feel pushed out by the preponderance of "political correctness" (now there's an oxymoron for ya!) It wasn't so long ago that leftwingers began the "free speech movement" in a similar spirit. What goes around comes around... Merrily, merrily, merrily!

We all know what is said about opinions and everyone having one, however, isn't it fun? Sometimes, just sometimes, I have to beieve what I see. No health insurance even offered at my place of employment, gas prices through the roof, uncaring government regarding Katrina victims, and now U.S. citizens have to pay to be rescued from the mid-east. So... with all that and even more...it certainly appears that our government doesn't care about the majority of it's citizens and therefore, it would not surprise me if our government had a hand in the 911 attacks.

My previous comment was based on my misunderstanding that the prof. was teaching his conspiracy theory in class. He isn't even teaching the class yet? That changes my opinion COMPLETELY. "My bad", as the youngsters say. In the future, I'll read much more carefully, especially before commenting.

Incidentally, I am not a Republican, and the current Bush administration has made it less likely that I would ever be one. I consider myself to be moderate (a combination of liberal and conservative views, depending on the issue) politically. My personal lifestyle has become quite conservative in many respects, but I don't believe that gov't policy should always have to reflect my personal values.

When I said "careful analysis of what is being taught where", I didn't mean that ideas and dialogue should be censored. That was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more along the lines of keeping the general focus of a given class on its topic and on the commonly accepted theories of the given field. Again, I was writing under the mistaken belief that the Madison prof was teaching conspiracies in the Islam class. I was also thinking of the ridiculous proposal that "intelligent design" be given equal consideration in a science class.

I've observed what aarmac writes about "what goes around comes around". I've always thought the political climate seems to swing from one extreme to the other, like a pendulum. Personally, I've never felt comfortable labeling myself as a member of either side. I'm more interested in making sure that the pendulum is well-oiled, and doesn't become stuck anywhere on its path.

I've often wondered about the accusation that universities or the media are dominated by liberals. As if all the conservatives are bound and gagged in a dungeon somewhere. It reminds me of the bumper sticker "Why Is the Majority Silent?"

My previous comment was based on my misunderstanding that the prof. was teaching his conspiracy theory in class. He isn't even teaching the class yet? That changes my opinion COMPLETELY. "My bad", as the youngsters say. In the future, I'll read much more carefully, especially before commenting.

Incidentally, I am not a Republican, and the current Bush administration has made it less likely that I would ever be one. I consider myself to be moderate (a combination of liberal and conservative views, depending on the issue) politically. My personal lifestyle has become quite conservative in many respects, but I don't believe that gov't policy should always have to reflect my personal values.

When I said "careful analysis of what is being taught where", I didn't mean that ideas and dialogue should be censored. That was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more along the lines of keeping the general focus of a given class on its topic and on the commonly accepted theories of the given field. Again, I was writing under the mistaken belief that the Madison prof was teaching conspiracies in the Islam class. I was also thinking of the ridiculous proposal that "intelligent design" be given equal consideration in a science class.

I've observed what aarmac writes about "what goes around comes around". I've always thought the political climate seems to swing from one extreme to the other, like a pendulum. Personally, I've never felt comfortable labeling myself as a member of either side. I'm more interested in making sure that the pendulum is well-oiled, and doesn't become stuck anywhere on its path.

I've often wondered about the accusation that universities or the media are dominated by liberals. As if all the conservatives are bound and gagged in a dungeon somewhere. It reminds me of the bumper sticker "Why Is the Majority Silent?"

I agree with dar. My suspicions about gov't involvement in 9/11 started almost immediately after the fact. It's important to put this topic on the table and test it for all it's worth.

If Barrett actually does present his theories on campus, it would be best that he separate them from his coverage of Islam. To link the two topics would be too provocative at this time.

It's important to promote such theories from the standpoint of not necessarily being complicit with fundamentalist beliefs. Alas, too many people lack the critical thinking skills to compartmentalize such things.